Kamla Rani vs State of Haryana

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner questions the validity of order dated 14.10.2014, Annexure P9, whereby her candidature for appointment to the post of PGT (English) has been rejected. Brief facts are that the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board (for short ''the Board'') issued advertisement dated 7.6.2012 inviting applications for recruitment to various posts of PGT teachers including 1870 posts of PGT (English). The petitioner, who belongs to the General Category, is stated to have applied for the post of PGT (English) within the stipulated time frame. Petitioner was even interviewed on 8.11.2012. In the process of selection, petitioner was placed at merit serial No. 38. Candidates lower in merit to the petitioner were issued appointment letters and allowed to join duties in the month of April, 2014. Qualifications and experience of the petitioner being under scrutiny, she was not offered appointment. Show cause notice dated 18.7.2014 was issued to the petitioner to which she submitted detailed reply dated 31.7.2014. Candidature of the petitioner stands rejected vide impugned order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Haryana, School Education Department, Chandigarh. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the premise of being over-age.

Mr. R.K. Malik, learned Senior Counsel has argued that the petitioner was duly qualified for the post of PGT (English) as per the essential qualifications prescribed in the advertisement and as such, having been assigned merit position No. 38 amongst the General Category candidate, she could not be denied her vested right of appointment to the post. Learned Senior Counsel would place heavy reliance on Rule 5 of the Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group ''B'') Service Rules, 2012 (for short ''2012 Rules'') to contend that age relaxation in the upper age limit to the extent of service rendered by a teacher subject to a maximum of five years was envisaged. To take benefit of Rule 5 of 2012 Rules, it has been argued that date of birth of the petitioner is 1.1.1972 and the last date for submission of application forms as per advertisement, was 28.6.2012 and as on such date, age of the petitioner was 40 years and six months. It has been argued that as per Rule 5 of 2012 Rules, the upper age limit prescribed is 40 years of age, yet on account of the fact that the petitioner possessed teaching experience of almost eight years, she was entitled to age relaxation upto five years while under the given fact situation, the requirement was only of being granted relaxation of six months under Rule 5 of 2012 Rules. In furtherance of such submission, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the word ''teacher'' as finding mention in Rule 5 of the Statutory Rules has to include within its ambit all types of teachers whether they have teaching experience in primary schools, high schools or colleges, as the case may be. Action of the respondent-Authorities in denying to the petitioner the benefit of relaxation of age under Rule 5 is contended to be arbitrary and illegal. Further submission made by the learned Senior Counsel is that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 26.8.2014 has raised the upper age limit for entry into Government service from 40 to 42 years and, accordingly, it is argued that the impugned order rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the post of PGT (English) only on the premise of being over age cannot sustain in the light of such notification dated 26.8.2014.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length.

Rule 5 of the 2012 Rules reads as follows:

"AGE

No person shall be appointed to the post in the service by direct recruitment on contract basis who is less than eighteen years or more than forty years of age or such age as fixed by the Government, from time to time on the last date of submission of application to the recruiting agency.

Provided that teachers working in privately managed Government aided, recognized and Government schools, shall be given age relaxation in upper age limit to the extent of service rendered by them as a teacher subject to a maximum of five years. However, the said relaxation shall be as a onetime measure only."

Perusal of the statutory provision would make it clear that no person is to be appointed to a post in the service by direct recruitment who is less than 18 years or more than 40 years of age. As per proviso to Rule 5 of the 2012 Rules, it is only teachers working in privately managed Government aided, recognized and Government schools who are entitled to age relaxation in upper age limit to the extent of service rendered by them as a teacher subject to a maximum of five years. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner herself in the light of documents placed on record and appended at Annexures P7 and P8 that she possesses experience of almost eight years of working as Lecturer (English) at the College level. Such experience possessed by the petitioner does not fulfil the requirement of possessing teaching experience in privately managed Government aided, recognized and Government schools so as to be entitled to seek relaxation in upper age limit. Even the submission raised by learned senior counsel that the word ''teacher'' as employed in the proviso to Rule 5 of 2012 Rules would include all teachers, be it a primary school, high school or college teachers, is without merit. Acceptance of such a submission would amount to reading something alien into the statutory provision. Language in proviso to Rule 5 being clear and unambiguous, there would be no justification for this Court to resort to an exercise of interpretation and to widen and enhance the scope of such provision.

That apart, a similar contention and claim raised by a candidate who had applied for the post of PGT (Hindi) and which post is also governed by the same very 2012 Statutory Rules and who also possessed four years'' experience as Lecturer and had prayed for such experience to be counted was negated by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 23099 of 2012 titled as Manju Yadav v. State of Haryana and others. The relevant observations made by the Division Bench were in the following terms:

"We are afraid that such a contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. There is a definite purpose for prescribing 4 years'' experience of teaching the students in PGT which, for the posts now advertised, is the only material consideration. Even when the petitioner has taught as Lecturer i.e. at a higher post and to the college going students, such experience cannot be made use of while fulfilling the requirements contained in the Rules."

Even the notification dated 26.8.2014 at Annexure P10 issued by the State Government raising the upper age limit for entry into Government service from 40 years to 42 years cannot enure to the benefit to the petitioner. Under Rule 5 of the 2012 Rules, the upper age limit for appointment to a post in the service by direct recruitment has been stipulated as 40 years. Rule further clarifies that the upper age limit could also be such age as fixed by the Government from time to time on the last date of submission of applications to the recruiting agency. Admittedly, the petitioner had applied in response to the advertisement dated 7.6.2012, Annexure P1, issued by the Board. The last date for submission of applications was stipulated as 28.6.2012. Eligibility of the candidates for the post in question would have to be reckoned as per such date i.e. 28.6.2012. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bhupinder Pal Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2000 (2) SCT 826. As on such crucial date i.e. 28.6.2012 which is the last date of submission of application forms and the date on which the eligibility of the petitioner was to be reckoned, the notification dated 26.8.2014 at Annexure P10 had not even seen the light of the day. The notification dated 26.8.2014, Annexure P10, would have no applicability to the facts of the present case.

It is not even the case made out on behalf of the petitioner that any other candidate for the post of PGT (English) and who had a teaching experience at the college level has been granted relaxation by invoking the proviso to Rule 5 of the 2012 Rules.

For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 14.10.2014, Annexure P9, whereby candidature of the petitioner for the post of PGT (English) has been rejected. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.